RE: Letter to Judge Malcolm - RCS Closing Argument

	To clarify Jim Lehrer's point about scheduling during the weeks of
July 13 and 20, I will be unavailable Wednesday, July 15, through Tuesday,
July 21.

  	Andy Niven

> -------
> From: 	Quon, Susan L[SMTP:QUONSL@sce.com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, June 11, 1998 3:21 PM
> To: 	'edf@cpuc.ca.gov'; 'kdw@cpuc.ca.gov'; 'malcantar@aandellp.com';
> 'sharon.arceneaux-ebenebe@pacificorp.com'; 'cbaker@ns.net';
> 'bbarkovich@aol.com'; 'blunden@hotmail.com'; 'wbooth@jtcb.com';
> 'abb@eslawfirm.com'; 'mcbyer@earthlink.net'; Counihan, Rick;
> 'rczahar@aol.com'; 'mday@gmssr.com'; 'rumla@earthlink.net';
> 'cte@eslawfirm.com'; 'eelsesser@aandellp.com'; 'difellman@earthlink.net';
> 'bfinkelstein@turn.org'; 'njfuruta@efawest.navfac.navy.mil';
> 'jgray@gmssr.com'; 'lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com'; 'caj@cpuc.ca.gov';
> 'mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com'; 'sjubien@energy.state.ca.us';
> 'rjuels@scwater.com'; 'cmkehrein@ems-ca.com'; 'kkelley@hesinet.com';
> 'chrisk@cellnet.com'; 'dank@edf.com'; 'ronknecht@aol.com';
> 'lkristov@energy.state.ca.us'; 'ylw@aol.com'; 'dlf@cpuc.ca.gov'; Lehrer,
> James M; 'jleslie@luce.com'; 'rliebert@cfbf.com'; 'llk@cpuc.ca.gov';
> 'dmarcus@slip.net'; 'bmcc@mccarthylaw.com'; 'scm@mrwassoc.com';
> 'kmccrea@sablaw.com'; 'jeff@jbsenergy.com'; Niven, Andrew;
> 'bho@cpuc.ca.gov'; 'mpalme1@ect.enron.com'; 'spatrick@pacent.com';
> 'klpeterson@chrm.com'; 'jep@cpuc.ca.gov'; 'mrostker@gmssr.com';
> 'bwa@slip.net'; 'pschmiege@omm.com'; 'mshames@ucan.org';
> 'askaff@chrm.com'; 'jsole@hooked.net'; 'jsqueri@gmssr.com';
> 'athomas@newenergy.com'; 'vthompso@sdge.com'; 'kim@cpuc.ca.gov';
> 'mwynne@uoc.com'; 'jharris@hrdb.com'; 'rates@dra1.cpuc.ca.gov'; Gross,
> Burton; 'www.powersavers@pacbell.com'; 'napedersen@jonesday.com';
> 'eric@gcnet.org'
> Cc: 	Arriola, Paula K
> Subject: 	FW: Letter to Judge Malcolm - RCS Closing Argument
> 
> >
> >Dear Judge Malcolm:
> >
> >I am sending this note on behalf of Southern California Edison, Pacific
> Gas &
> >Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric.  The three utilities believe that
> >there would be value in conducting a closing argument in advance of the
> oral
> >argument to the full Commission.  We recommend, however, that the date of
> the
> >closing argument be postponed, for two reasons.
> >
> >First, the Commissioners may wish to hear argument on the proposed
> agreement
> >between SDG&E and certain other parties.  We understand that the proposed
> >agreement is still being discussed, and SCE and PG&E have not been
> advised of
> >its details.  It seems appropriate to postpone the closing argument until
> the
> >proposed agreement has been made public and the parties have had an
> >opportunity to evaluate how it might apply to SCE and PG&E.
> >
> >Second, the closing argument may be more helpful once the record is
> closed
> >and the parties' positions more fully defined.  Under the current
> schedule,
> >the Commission will receive additional rebuttal testimony after the
> closing
> >argument.  Moreover, the Commissioners may benefit from seeing the
> parties'
> >briefs in advance of the argument.
> >
> >For these reasons, the three utilities propose that the oral argument be
> >rescheduled to a date after the reply briefs have been filed.  Because
> >counsel for SCE and PG&E will be unavailable the week of July 13, we
> suggest
> >the argument be scheduled the week of July 20 or thereafter.
> >
> >Thank you for your kind consideration of our suggestion.
> >
> >			Very truly yours,
> >
> >
> >
> >			James M. Lehrer
> >
> >
> 
.